|
Summaries
of Recent New Mexico Appellate Opinions - Criminal Cases
|
|
|
Full Opinions - Hard Copy
|
Criminal Cases: December 2007 (most
recent cases listed first)
State v. Dominguez, CA 25,925 (Alarid) Dec 21, 2008
When the state charges multiple carbon copy counts against a defendant over a particular time span, this does not provide notice or protect the defendant against double jeopardy unless the state articulates factual distinctions that serve to identify different offenses; the fact that the victim is a child does not excuse the state from having to specify, although the specification can be as simple as “this happened on the day my friend brought a camera to school” or “this happened about a month before my birthday in 6th grade.”
State v. Willie, CA 26,116 (Fry) Dec 17, 2007
State failed to lay a sufficient foundation for a breath test when officer did not ascertain, either by looking in Defendant’s mouth or asking him, that Defendant did not have anything in his mouth at the beginning of the 20-minute deprivation period; strict compliance with this regulation that goes to accuracy of test is required.
State v. O’Neal, CA 25,710 (Bustamante) Dec 11, 2007
In a procedurally complex case in which the prosecutor mentioned the people named in Defendant’s notice of alibi during voir dire and opening statement without objection and talked about the notice of alibi to which objection was overruled but later granted and an instruction was given to the jury to disregard any mention of the notice, and in which Defendant testified that he was not present during the time of the commission of the crime, any reference to the notice of alibi, while error under the specific rule, was harmless error and there was no prosecutorial misconduct requiring a mistrial when the prosecutor challenged Defendant’s alibi theory (Kennedy dissenting on the ground that the prosecutor’s actions violated Defendant’s right to chose the defense he wants to use at trial without adverse comment as part of his Fifth Amendment rights).
State v. Anaya, CA 27,441 (Castillo) Dec 6, 2007
Statute requiring turn signal applies only when traffic might be affected, so police cannot stop people for violation of that statute unless they have factual support that traffic might be affected; stop will be illegal when officers make pure mistake of law, so this stop was illegal even though officer thought he could make stop without reference to other traffic; law that officers can make stop based on erroneous subjective view of facts when objective facts support stop continues to be good law.
Martinez v. Chavez, SC 30,194 (Per Curiam) Dec 5, 2007
Upon district court proceedings granting relief to criminal defendants in lower court proceedings, where there is a subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals, habeas corpus is not the only remedy available in district court (there can be prohibition, superintending control, etc.) and therefore Court of Appeals would have jurisdiction over the appeals and its transfer of cases to the Supreme Court on the basis that the district court cases were habeas cases was erroneous; notwithstanding 34-5-10, which states that transfers are final determinations of jurisdiction, Supreme Court exercises superintending control to remand back to Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals should continue to transfer misfiled habeas cases to Supreme Court.
Hall v. Carlsbad Supermaket/IGA, CA 26,538 (Vigil) Dec 6, 2007
When an IME doctor goes beyond the scope of what he was appointed to look into but the recommended resolution that led to the IME was not explicit about his authority and the IME finds other injuries that he concludes are work caused, the WCJ can consider his testimony and award benefits accordingly.
State v. Chavez, SC 30,567 (Serna) Dec 3, 2007
Standard of proof for a redetermination of competency is preponderance of the evidence notwithstanding that there has to be clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed the crimes for which he is proposed to be confined until he reaches competency.
|
